Public policy making in the Philippines' 12th congress (2001-2004): process, direction and priorities

Professorial Chair Lecture

UPFI Professorial Chair Lecture

Place

Seminar Room, Institute of Development Management and Governance, College of Public Affairs, UPLB, College, Laguna

Date

6-27-2002

Abstract

The study endeavored to describe the public policy formulation process in the First Regular Session July 2001-June 2002 of the 12th Congress of the Philippines (2001-2004), particularly the House of Representatives. It also attempted to determine the development priorities, direction and pace of public policy making as well as determining the factors that influence policy formulation in the 12th Congress.

Public policy making in the Philippines follows a process starting with the identification of the problem, followed by the preparation of policy proposals by the proponents. These proposals referred to as House bills and House resolutions in the House of Representatives are filed and referred to appropriate individual committees for study. After which, the bill if acted upon favorably by the committee will go through a series of deliberations with the legislators in plenary. When the bill reaches the level of the President, then it is either approved into a law or is vetoed.

There were 4,424 house bills and 772 house resolutions filed and referred to the house committees. Only 9 of these house bills eventually became laws. These laws were concerned with problems of drugs, money laundering, protection of plant varieties, among others.

The minimal output in terms of the laws suggests a slow pace of public policy making in the first regular session of the 12th Congress, House of Representatives. This relatively show pace could be attributed to the committee's regard of the bills as of low priority, delays in the reconciliation of House and Senate versions of the bill, delays due to consolidation and/or substitution of similar or related bills. Bills needing new or additional funding or appropriations also lie dormant at the committee level. Moreover, it was observed that sometimes there is a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings by prolonged debates and interpellations. It is also deemed sometimes that there is a need for further deliberations on the bill.

The nature, type and priorities of public policy making appear to have been influenced by internal factors like executive/legislative/judicial considerations, constituency needs, peer relationship in the house and staff members capability. Also, outside pressure also play in the determination of policy priorities.

Location

UPLB Main Library Special Collections Section (USCS)

College

College of Public Affairs and Development (CPAf)

Language

English

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS